Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

GOVERNMENT CONSIDERING GIVING PROTECTION TO THE POLICE TO DRIVE DANGEROUSLY FREE FROM PROSECUTION

This is a dangerous proposal that holds constant threats for our children and there are strong clues that those behind the proposal mean to see it passed in to law.

The figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal the following:

Police cause nine crashes a day and have killed 150 people in road smashes since 2004 during pursuits. They caused 3,357 crashers, an average of more than 64 a week injuring 2,492 victims.

A traffic cop driving at 94mph in a 30 mph zone in Newcastle, lost control and killed a 16 year old schoolgirl.

ROSPA said police should !!!8216;lessen the risk of the same mistakes happening in future.!!!8217; All well and good and easy to say and it makes sense to a normal person with average intelligence, but will the Government see it that way?

Read more and please sign my petition at:

I am trying to direct readers to an important site, but you moderators appear to have put systems in place to prevent my doing so for whatever reason. You also feel it necessary to place nonsense in place of my inverted commas. So if readers would like to be enlightened as to Government and police dirty tricks, email me that is if it is allowed.

Last edited by fridae; 24-07-2018 at 8:57 PM.
Reason: Link was corrupted

I can't be arsed to quote all the OP's latest post but far from persuading me to support his cause it's encouraging me to look at opposing campaigns to give support - not quite going to plan is it OP ?

Op - basically you're giving any criminal a guaranteed get out of jail free card, because they know if they go 1mph over the speed limit, the police will have to end the chase to ensure they drive "carefully at all times". Given the pressures our police are currently under, I don't think the threat of a disciplinary/sacking for the best trained drivers who already call off a chase if it's too dangerous, if they happen to hit 71mph on the motorway chasing a multiple rapist is the best idea.

Big set of bullbars on the front of every police car. Then get them to ram the bikes off the road as soon as they make it clear they have no intention of stopping, thus reducing the length of the chase, and lessening the time an innocent member of the public is at risk. If the scroat is injured by this, so be it. Oh, and be sure to charge them for any hospital treatment needed because of it.

Far from your view that the police service is full of young macho kids who want to turn the streets into a.race track it seems reasonable they should be able to drive fast and break some road laws (in accordance with their training) without fear of getting sent to court.

If this doesn't come in who would blame them if they just removed the blue lights and sirens from all the cars.

I'd also be interested to see how many accidents are caused each day by none police cars I bet it's significantly more than the number caused by the police.

You do realise that the video you use to support your argument makes reference to a "high speed pursuit" and shows an American police car driving on the wrong side of the road at high speed whilst the driver is taking a hand of the steering wheel to operate the net device?

The way things stand at the moment, a police officer driving a motor vehicle in pursuit of another motor vehicle and a police officer driving a motor vehicle in response to a call to what might be a serious incident is not instructed nor expected to drive carelessly or dangerously or recklessly and takes it upon himself or herself and assumes sole responsibility should he or she choose to drive carelessly or dangerously or recklessly and if that careless, dangerous, reckless driving causes an accident (resulting in damage, death or injury to any member of the public including the driver of the vehicle being pursued) or causes another vehicle to have an accident, regardless of circumstances that might have contributed to the accident, or the severity of the accident, the police officer who caused the accident is fully aware s/he will have no protection in law and will bear alone the consequences of his or her actions.

Board guides are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an abusive or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.

For fairly obvious reasons I'm not signing your petition but genuinely interested in what your alternative suggestions are

Victim to 999 - please help I'm being robbed
999 - don't worry Ma'am we're on our way - probably be there in about 40mins given traffic conditions, red lights etc. Oh and when we arrive we'll carry out a risk assessment before getting out of the car.

Do you advocate CCTV/personal tagging to catch criminals or just suggest that crime isn't an issue ?

Or I will speed and end up wrapped round a tree and won't arrive to help with your 999 situation at all but I will definitely do it faster than anyone else could. Of course it will mean one less police officer for several months as I recover from my injuries but I will be on fullpay.

Far from your view that the police service is full of young macho kids who want to turn the streets into a.race track it seems reasonable they should be able to drive fast and break some road laws (in accordance with their training) without fear of getting sent to court.

If this doesn't come in who would blame them if they just removed the blue lights and sirens from all the cars.

I'd also be interested to see how many accidents are caused each day by none police cars I bet it's significantly more than the number caused by the police.

The latest figures I could find show there are approximately 150,000 police officers in the UK. In September 2014 the DVLA said there were 45.5 million active driving licence records. It would be very surprising if the police were involved in more accidents than the rest of the population given the difference in numbers. Statistics are wonderful, you can bend them to support all sorts of arguments if people just take them at face value.

You also have to consider not all police officers are drivers so the difference is even greater.

This individual has no clue whatsoever about the depth of training police officers receive, as well as the scrutiny police drivers are under when something occurs, the Telematics fitted to most police vehicles which can be examined in minute detail, the amount of video and audio evidence available which automatically starts as soon as the emergency equipment is switched on.

I haven't been depressed enough to read his/her entire rant, but the simple facts behind the proposed changes lead from the fact that currently police officers are judged in any driving incident against the actions of a "reasonably competent and careful drivers".

When the police driver claims his/her exemption in law, and makes a decision to go through a set of red traffic lights, exceed a speed limit or go the wrong side of a keep left or Keep right bollard, how does this sit compared to a "Reasonably competent and careful driver"

Clearly they would not do so, they have no training in doing this, and there is no external pressure on them to do this, and they have no legal exemption in law to do so, therefore the police driver is already disadvantaged and his/her professional training the gravity of the job they are attending is not taken into account.

The proposed change is to accept police response/advanced and pursuit drivers are trained, and to judge the officers actions against their training, as well as question their justification in using their legal exemptions, proportionality etc.

It will not make any difference to how the police officers are trained, expected to drive, or investigated by the IOPC, it will however bring their training into focus.

No police officer goes out like Mad Max, it is difficult enough to second guess the actions of other road users when on response or in a pursuit situation, but one would hope that when an incident occurs, one would be judged against the agreed, national competencies of a trained police driver.

Every policy that is implemented sounds good on paper but in practice isnt at all a very good idea.

I understand the good need for police to be confortable in their roles, and that what, i think, the OP is getting at, is that making new policies to make it that police are more than comfortable is not a best dish served up warm at all.

I dont think a police force or force member that has a qualified imunity from any recourse of an idividuals actions, is best for the country, it tends to hint at worse things to come.
I firmly believe it is best to have police on their toes, in a checks and balances way, if an officer acts outside of his traning and capabilities as an officer after proving his knowladge and training is above that level of what is expected of the job role, then he/she is knowingly acting outside his job role, he should be fully liable for those actions.

Its been said that criminals shouldn't be criminals and when they are, they deserve what they get, are seen as like the jewish were to the SS regime of WW2, lesser than vermin, but unfortunately the policing world isnt quite like that, they have to adhere to human rights, and equal rights, as even criminals are equal under the law, to be treated like a human under the law, and not be discriminated against under the law or unjustly injured by law. The policies in place i think are more than sufficient to handle todays form of policing, Its a difficult job, that alot of people will not do, and would rather clean a toilet seat with their tongue after it has been sick on, than think of being a police officer, but an officer should not lose all culpabilties of their actions to be litigated against when they go beyond the scope of their official duties, I hate to go there but, it doesnt work in some states of America and federal and superior courts have made overuling presedents in case law holding officers personally liable to certain offences, theres also insurers for the police force who also wont cover certain types of things too so when it goes wrong and there is a immunity personally who is liable?

Or I will speed and end up wrapped round a tree and won't arrive to help with your 999 situation at all but I will definitely do it faster than anyone else could. Of course it will mean one less police officer for several months as I recover from my injuries but I will be on fullpay.

We don't need young macho coppers encouraged further to demonstrate they can drive faster and more cleverly than the Mad Maxs on the road. We just need more passive technology to identify every vehicle exactly, and every person in it or on it. The technology should not be collecting data constantly, but be triggered, again passively, by roadside scanners which can detect speeding and other offences.

Meantime police drivers should not need any further protection in law - they already have vehicles which are far in advance of anything they might have been chasing around in 10 years ago and if they make a mistake when driving at speed and cause an accident, they should personally answer for it in time honoured fashion.

I will never forget travelling north on the A10 towards Cambridge many years ago and having just been overtaken by a speeding car myself, having to anchor up for a terrible accident that had just happened round a corner in front of me. It transpired that an unmarked big police car had been being chased by the car that last overtook me and it ran slap into the back of a small car waiting at traffic lights killing the non-macho nurse in it whom I believe was just passively driving to work.

Just a few years previous to that, I had met a young copper a few times socially who was being trained in such training exercises. Unfortunately, macho is a very good word to describe his manner, and how he described his exploits, chasing around usually at night three or four up in pairs of Ford Fiestas to begin with, regularly swapping who was in the driving seat.

If you put such people in a chase behind the same sort of minds weaving in and out of traffic on the A406 in East London or at the bottom of the M11 then it would end in tears. That's why they don't currently. They've instead deployed cameras and ANPR and supposedly follow up obvious multiple incidents per hour of dangerous driving passively from footage and other data when police get time.

Suggesting we need aggressive chasing is just to kid Daily Express readers in the populace that police are still doing a good job, despite the fact most of us don't even see an officer in the street or on the road from one week to the next.

I used to live in a road with a sharp bend in it, we were near a police station and often had police cars coming round that bend far too fast. I was talking to a local officer and he said, "We are trained to a much higher standard than you so it is safe." I asked him if his training included being able to see round corners, apparently it didn't.

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.